Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

the court observed the plaintiff’s other requests were broad enough to encompass the requested
data, regardless of whether it was maintained in a "financial software database." The court
determined the defendants need not produce documents specific to the plaintiff’s request but
declared the defendants “may not withhold any documents (including electronic documents) that
are responsive to any other request simply because they were created by or exist in a financial
database program.” The court also denied the plaintiff’s expert direct access to the database
indicating the plaintiff could seek direct access upon “a showing of why [direct access] is
necessary, and by proposing a procedure containing adequate safeguards to protect [the
defendants’] interests.”
� Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. v. Nanometrics, Inc., 417 F.Supp.2d 1121 (N.D. 2006). In a
patent infringement case, the plaintiffs sought to compel production of documents in native format
with original metadata. The plaintiffs asserted native production format was mandated by a local
patent rule that required a party defending a patent infringement claim to make available "[s]ource
code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation…” Finding
the defendants failed to offer relevant reasons why the documents should not be produced in their
native format, the court granted the motion and ordered the defendants to “produce the documents
in their native file format, with original metadata.” The court further declared the document
production set “shall be separately identified by Bates numbers to correspond to each aspect or
element of each accused instrumentality identified in [the defendant’s patent] chart.”
� Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. v., No. C-00-20905 RMW (N.D.Cal. Jan. 4, 2006). In
a patent infringement suit, the plaintiffs argued the defendant’s claims should be dismissed based
on the defendant’s adoption of a document retention policy that resulted in the destruction of
potentially relevant electronic and paper documents. Prior to filing the litigation at issue, the
defendant developed a document retention policy requiring the destruction of e-mail contained on
backup tapes after three months. In addition, the defendant held several “Shred Days” during
which employees were instructed to follow the retention policy guidelines to determine what to
keep and what to throw away. In assessing the plaintiffs’ argument, the court noted the evidence
failed to show the defendant targeted any specific document or category of relevant documents
with the intent to prevent production in the upcoming lawsuit. The court further found the
defendant’s adoption of the policy was not designed to prevent the plaintiffs from obtaining
evidence that would be helpful to the plaintiffs’ defense. For these reasons, the court declined to
accept the plaintiffs’ argument and declared, “[The defendant’s] adoption and implementation of its
content neutral Document Retention Policy in mid-1998 was a permissible business
decision…[and] did not constitute unlawful spoliation.”
� Sony Computer Entertainment Am., Inc. v. Filipiak, 2005 WL 3556676 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 27,
2005). The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages claiming the defendant sold products that
allowed users to play illegal copies of the plaintiff’s PlayStation video games. After receiving a
cease-and-desist letter from the plaintiff’s attorneys, the defendant signed the letter and agreed to
an injunction prohibiting the marketing, sale and distribution of the products. Although the
defendant removed the products from his Web site, he continued to sell them. After confronting the
defendant about his violation of the previous agreement, the parties executed a Consent Judgment
against the defendant for an undetermined amount which was to be based on further discovery. As
a part of the discovery provisions, the defendant agreed he would not destroy any documents or
computer files reflecting sales of his products. During discovery, the defendant’s hard drive was
examined by a computer forensic expert, who determined thousands of files had been deleted from
the hard drive just days before production of the hard drive. The deleted files included numerous
242